Hello from the great wasteland of Wichita Fall TX...God I can't wait to get home. This place blows, i would post pics but there isn't anything to photograph here.
Well tomorrow is the big day in Texas and I'm still trying to figure out how these peeps are going to pick the lesser of 2 EVILS. Hillare or Obama, there isn't even a real choice.
Well to pick up on the conversation with Titus on the rule of law from a previous post. Ryan has been his own paradox since I have been reading these forums so I'm not sure I have a good answer for ya. What I mean is he claims to be a staunch conservative but he votes for a friggin union, how does that work. I guess that's how he justifies picking the laws to enforce and the ones to ignore. Ya know if he would just call himself a centrist that leans a little to the right I wouldn't be picking on him but how do you call yourself a republican or conservative and be pro-union. Well you get my meaning anyways.
That's enough shit stirring for the night
Baddboy
Monday, March 3, 2008
A must-read article...
"China's assymetrical strategy"
This is a fantastic piece on China's long-term strategic goals towards the Pacific region and the US. THIS is an article that McCain would read and understand, while Obama and Hillary couldn't hire enough people to explain it to them.
This threat is real... and it isn't the only one. It isn't a long walk to see that a similar view can be applied to recent Russian threats of a "new arms race" where Russia develops and takes pride in "thousands of new weapons" (nukes)... when in reality, they don't need the weapons. They only need the perception of the weapons to influence an OBVIOUSLY divided US Congress when it comes to national security and defense spending and initiatives.
This article also shows that someone at the CSP thinks just like WE do... and agrees that a conventional military capable of fighting an unconventional war is far more important than a smaller, leaner, faster military that depends on strategic surprise and surgical strikes to succeed in its efforts against inferior forces... and fails. While I'm sure the "Class of '91" (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, et al) had every confidence and faith in our abilities to repeat the Gulf War in '03... they hadn't counted on fighting anyone other than Saddam. THAT is their greatest failing.
Read the piece...
This is a fantastic piece on China's long-term strategic goals towards the Pacific region and the US. THIS is an article that McCain would read and understand, while Obama and Hillary couldn't hire enough people to explain it to them.
This threat is real... and it isn't the only one. It isn't a long walk to see that a similar view can be applied to recent Russian threats of a "new arms race" where Russia develops and takes pride in "thousands of new weapons" (nukes)... when in reality, they don't need the weapons. They only need the perception of the weapons to influence an OBVIOUSLY divided US Congress when it comes to national security and defense spending and initiatives.
This article also shows that someone at the CSP thinks just like WE do... and agrees that a conventional military capable of fighting an unconventional war is far more important than a smaller, leaner, faster military that depends on strategic surprise and surgical strikes to succeed in its efforts against inferior forces... and fails. While I'm sure the "Class of '91" (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, et al) had every confidence and faith in our abilities to repeat the Gulf War in '03... they hadn't counted on fighting anyone other than Saddam. THAT is their greatest failing.
Read the piece...
What the...?
Okay, number one, I wrote an absolutely STUNNING Nobel prize worthy response to that TRIPE you posted about inconsistency in my postings Sunday and the blog site ATE it. Gone. Completely. Do you know how disheartening that is?
Number two, during ONE class period I connected the Babylonian Captivity, the Great Schism, threw in the Black Plague, made it all relevant to ninth grade CCD students, and drew an unbroken line from 1054 and Humbert of Silva-Candida to Martin Luther and his actions on 31 Oct. 1517. While that may seem mundane to your slacker eyes now that you're out of the instruction aspect of your faith, it does require some effort that takes me away from Bunding.
Number three, I've been spending a lot of time today explaining the whole "snow covered pile of poop" aspect of Lutheranism. For some reason it's not in their little catechism book. Shocker? I think not. It fits nicely in between Sola Scripura and Sola Fidelae.
And if you bothered to check the hits list, I see the damned site three times a day. Just because I don't get a chance to post doesn't mean I'm not reading your contributions, or Ryan's when he finishes his move.
So back off before I bring the rain.
Number two, during ONE class period I connected the Babylonian Captivity, the Great Schism, threw in the Black Plague, made it all relevant to ninth grade CCD students, and drew an unbroken line from 1054 and Humbert of Silva-Candida to Martin Luther and his actions on 31 Oct. 1517. While that may seem mundane to your slacker eyes now that you're out of the instruction aspect of your faith, it does require some effort that takes me away from Bunding.
Number three, I've been spending a lot of time today explaining the whole "snow covered pile of poop" aspect of Lutheranism. For some reason it's not in their little catechism book. Shocker? I think not. It fits nicely in between Sola Scripura and Sola Fidelae.
And if you bothered to check the hits list, I see the damned site three times a day. Just because I don't get a chance to post doesn't mean I'm not reading your contributions, or Ryan's when he finishes his move.
So back off before I bring the rain.
From Jason...
... who is proud to be an Angry White Man, I got the link at right for an article in the Aspen Times. Colorado is not known as a hot-bed of political conservatism, and having lived there for a time, it is refreshing to see a bit of backbone from a state so known for "open-mindedness" that I have often feared everyone's brains had fallen out and hit the floor.
With any luck, Jason will visit the page soon and contribute his .00625 of the price for a gallon of gas (a sarcastic way of saying "two cents").
Thanks man...
With any luck, Jason will visit the page soon and contribute his .00625 of the price for a gallon of gas (a sarcastic way of saying "two cents").
Thanks man...
What the...?
Am I the ONLY one who visits this web site?
I'm dropping PEARLS here, people! How can you just ignore them???
You are all Philistines...
I'm dropping PEARLS here, people! How can you just ignore them???
You are all Philistines...
Here's an ego builder...
For months now (one could even say "years"), we here at the Bund have been debating the efficacy of conservative pundits that use name-calling and base humor to further the conservative point of view.
Recently, I have heard more and more criticism of such behavior... and mainly from the GOP and its base. Terms like "feminazis" and "Hitlery Clinton" are some that we have debated on actual "driveway" visits.
Most times, the more right-leaning members of our group (ahem) have dismissed it as liberal bias in an equally-sided mudslinging event... and I can't deny that liberals DO often employ invectives and radical images in their portrayal of consevative ideas and persons. I, myself, have on several occassions referred to F. Ryan (a very close and personal friend) as a "Nazi" and a "fascist" because of his GOP affiliations and enthusiasms (much to my regret).
On Feb. 11, in Simi, CA, a dinner was held for 43 living recipients of the Medal of Honor at the Reagan Presidential Library. Among those honored there were some of the most decorated veterans still living, and all were, without question, some of the finest examples of patriotism and personal bravery one could hope to find in America in ALL her long and storied history.
One of the events at this dinner was the awarding of a "Best of" certificate to several catagories of patriotic and conservative action in our society. Many talk radio hosts were at the event (probably all conservative), and several had an opportunity to speak during the event. One, in particular though, stood out as "exceptional"...
Mark Levin seems to have thought that his speech in front of these heroes should include some humor and entertainment (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here... more on this later), and in his speech, he continually referred to Hillary as "your Thighness" and once called her "ugly as sin".
This, it would seem, did NOT go over well with the MoH crowd. None applauded, several boo'd, and no fewer than 5 got up from their tables and left the room until he was done talking. After the event, many said that NOTHING in Mr. Levin's speech did ANYTHING to further the conservative cause... and felt that his radio show followed the same path as his speech.
It seems that our old "Nice Nazi" club (that Jambo so elloquently recalled to mind recently) now has 43 NEW members... we are certainly adding some prestige to that old list of names, aren't we?
And if you're wondering where I heard the story from... it was from the MC for the event, someone pretty close to both the conservative movement in America and Ron Reagan. His son, Michael Reagan. How much do you want to bet that the vast majority of those MoH winners are going to vote for McCain... and NOT just because he is a veteran and a conservative, but because he showed some real moral fiber in front of the cameras?
Recently, I have heard more and more criticism of such behavior... and mainly from the GOP and its base. Terms like "feminazis" and "Hitlery Clinton" are some that we have debated on actual "driveway" visits.
Most times, the more right-leaning members of our group (ahem) have dismissed it as liberal bias in an equally-sided mudslinging event... and I can't deny that liberals DO often employ invectives and radical images in their portrayal of consevative ideas and persons. I, myself, have on several occassions referred to F. Ryan (a very close and personal friend) as a "Nazi" and a "fascist" because of his GOP affiliations and enthusiasms (much to my regret).
On Feb. 11, in Simi, CA, a dinner was held for 43 living recipients of the Medal of Honor at the Reagan Presidential Library. Among those honored there were some of the most decorated veterans still living, and all were, without question, some of the finest examples of patriotism and personal bravery one could hope to find in America in ALL her long and storied history.
One of the events at this dinner was the awarding of a "Best of" certificate to several catagories of patriotic and conservative action in our society. Many talk radio hosts were at the event (probably all conservative), and several had an opportunity to speak during the event. One, in particular though, stood out as "exceptional"...
Mark Levin seems to have thought that his speech in front of these heroes should include some humor and entertainment (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here... more on this later), and in his speech, he continually referred to Hillary as "your Thighness" and once called her "ugly as sin".
This, it would seem, did NOT go over well with the MoH crowd. None applauded, several boo'd, and no fewer than 5 got up from their tables and left the room until he was done talking. After the event, many said that NOTHING in Mr. Levin's speech did ANYTHING to further the conservative cause... and felt that his radio show followed the same path as his speech.
It seems that our old "Nice Nazi" club (that Jambo so elloquently recalled to mind recently) now has 43 NEW members... we are certainly adding some prestige to that old list of names, aren't we?
And if you're wondering where I heard the story from... it was from the MC for the event, someone pretty close to both the conservative movement in America and Ron Reagan. His son, Michael Reagan. How much do you want to bet that the vast majority of those MoH winners are going to vote for McCain... and NOT just because he is a veteran and a conservative, but because he showed some real moral fiber in front of the cameras?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
This should get Ryan's attention...
William Buckley.
Since his unfortunate passing a few days ago, I have been watching his interviews and debates on You Tube. Obviously, the most famous (infamous) one was with Gore Vidal (that "god-damn queer")... but there are literally dozens of interviews and debates of his if you just search his name.
Now, I'm not the fan of Buckley that James is. I admire Buckley for his drive to argue his point of view as opposed to simply presenting it with no direct opportunity for rebuttal. In that sense, more than any other, he was an innovator and a ground-breaker, and he influenced many future media venues by his televised debates (some of which have taken a decidedly anti-Buckley turn since, like NPR and the BBC). His unquestionably conservative views were never an issue with me as much as his conviction that the US could do no wrong based solely on its inherent founding principals. I feel his view and analysis of US political and foreign policy was a bit myopic at some times, and that he had a real tendency to try to work analogies into discussions that simply didn't apply (perhaps a tendency in myself that I learned from him).
Now, I am certainly not going to speak ill of the dead here, and Mr. Buckley's accomplishments are wonderful and staggering in their scope. I only wanted to introduce the man as an example of what I feel is still a failing of the conservative movement today, as it was at its inception (if we are to take Buckley as the founder of the movement).
As stated, the Buckley-Vidal brawl that you can see as soon as you type in his name at You Tube is the most famous exchange the man had... and it is very entertaining (the look on Vidal's face is priceless as he hears, then ponders, then realises just what it is that Buckley has said to him on LIVE TV is priceless!). The exchange that I think better demonstrates a general flaw in the conservative mind-set, however, is the Buckley-Chomsky debate from Buckley's own program.
First of all... this is format of debate-discussion that you will never see anymore... and that is tragic. 30 minutes of non-stop discussion about a determined topic. No moderators, and no clock ticking-down the 15 seconds to the next topic or commercial break. Imagine how much more we would know about our politicians, our authors, our pundits and commentators, and ourselves if we only saw more of this kind of intellectual exchange in the media... *sigh*
As I have repeatedly said in the past, the last truly "conservative" President that this nation has had (meaning one who actually DID all the things that the conservative movement says a conservative President should do) was Hoover. Buckley was NOT an influence on Hoover, so to label him the "Father" of modern conservatism is misleading, I think. I would say that he is the father of modern conservative media without hesitation, though. Between the National Review and Firing Line, he set the standard for all future conservative pundits. The most unfortunate aspect of this is that most of them have failed to maintain his standard of polite, rational debate.
Another unfortunate feature of the end product of Buckley's work is that many have also retained his tendancy to utterly disregard any opinion or observation that might conflict with his own. The Chomsky interview is a classic example of this, I think.
Chomsky is a fruit-loop... don't get me wrong. A pacifist of the first order, and an avowed anarchist. He is also a first-rate linguist and someone who bases his arguments and opinions on clear and measurable facts (as he sees them, anyway). There is no emotion in his delivery of his opinion, and he is unquestionably ready to back his opinion with facts and figures (which don't make him right, only a refreshing change from modern liberals). If you watch the exchange, the one thing you WON'T see Chomsky do is make an analogy.
Chomsky strives constantly to avoid the "what if?" questions, while Buckley never stops making them. THAT is why I say that the same tendency in me may very well be something I got from watching all those years of Firing Line on PBS in the 70's.
Another shocking aspect of this specific interview is that it is no long walk to see the same talk happening about Iraq instead of Vietnam. Check it out, if you don't believe me...
So when one hears me bitching about pundits that are ignoring their liberal guests-callers and simply using them as abuse-targets, know that these are the ones that have forgotten Buckley's efforts and example. The ONLY one that stands up to Buckley's example today (at least that I am aware of) is Bill Bennett's Morning in America. Calm, rational, sometimes funny, always entertaining... Buckley would be proud of Mr. Bennett.
Since his unfortunate passing a few days ago, I have been watching his interviews and debates on You Tube. Obviously, the most famous (infamous) one was with Gore Vidal (that "god-damn queer")... but there are literally dozens of interviews and debates of his if you just search his name.
Now, I'm not the fan of Buckley that James is. I admire Buckley for his drive to argue his point of view as opposed to simply presenting it with no direct opportunity for rebuttal. In that sense, more than any other, he was an innovator and a ground-breaker, and he influenced many future media venues by his televised debates (some of which have taken a decidedly anti-Buckley turn since, like NPR and the BBC). His unquestionably conservative views were never an issue with me as much as his conviction that the US could do no wrong based solely on its inherent founding principals. I feel his view and analysis of US political and foreign policy was a bit myopic at some times, and that he had a real tendency to try to work analogies into discussions that simply didn't apply (perhaps a tendency in myself that I learned from him).
Now, I am certainly not going to speak ill of the dead here, and Mr. Buckley's accomplishments are wonderful and staggering in their scope. I only wanted to introduce the man as an example of what I feel is still a failing of the conservative movement today, as it was at its inception (if we are to take Buckley as the founder of the movement).
As stated, the Buckley-Vidal brawl that you can see as soon as you type in his name at You Tube is the most famous exchange the man had... and it is very entertaining (the look on Vidal's face is priceless as he hears, then ponders, then realises just what it is that Buckley has said to him on LIVE TV is priceless!). The exchange that I think better demonstrates a general flaw in the conservative mind-set, however, is the Buckley-Chomsky debate from Buckley's own program.
First of all... this is format of debate-discussion that you will never see anymore... and that is tragic. 30 minutes of non-stop discussion about a determined topic. No moderators, and no clock ticking-down the 15 seconds to the next topic or commercial break. Imagine how much more we would know about our politicians, our authors, our pundits and commentators, and ourselves if we only saw more of this kind of intellectual exchange in the media... *sigh*
As I have repeatedly said in the past, the last truly "conservative" President that this nation has had (meaning one who actually DID all the things that the conservative movement says a conservative President should do) was Hoover. Buckley was NOT an influence on Hoover, so to label him the "Father" of modern conservatism is misleading, I think. I would say that he is the father of modern conservative media without hesitation, though. Between the National Review and Firing Line, he set the standard for all future conservative pundits. The most unfortunate aspect of this is that most of them have failed to maintain his standard of polite, rational debate.
Another unfortunate feature of the end product of Buckley's work is that many have also retained his tendancy to utterly disregard any opinion or observation that might conflict with his own. The Chomsky interview is a classic example of this, I think.
Chomsky is a fruit-loop... don't get me wrong. A pacifist of the first order, and an avowed anarchist. He is also a first-rate linguist and someone who bases his arguments and opinions on clear and measurable facts (as he sees them, anyway). There is no emotion in his delivery of his opinion, and he is unquestionably ready to back his opinion with facts and figures (which don't make him right, only a refreshing change from modern liberals). If you watch the exchange, the one thing you WON'T see Chomsky do is make an analogy.
Chomsky strives constantly to avoid the "what if?" questions, while Buckley never stops making them. THAT is why I say that the same tendency in me may very well be something I got from watching all those years of Firing Line on PBS in the 70's.
Another shocking aspect of this specific interview is that it is no long walk to see the same talk happening about Iraq instead of Vietnam. Check it out, if you don't believe me...
So when one hears me bitching about pundits that are ignoring their liberal guests-callers and simply using them as abuse-targets, know that these are the ones that have forgotten Buckley's efforts and example. The ONLY one that stands up to Buckley's example today (at least that I am aware of) is Bill Bennett's Morning in America. Calm, rational, sometimes funny, always entertaining... Buckley would be proud of Mr. Bennett.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
